University of Groningen
GFI1 is required for RUNX1/ETO positive acute myeloid leukemia
Marneth, Anna E.; Botezatu, Lacramioara; Hoenes, Judith M.; Israel, Jimmy C. L.; Schuette,
Judith; Vassen, Lothar; Lams, Robert F.; Bergevoet, Saskia M.; Groothuis, Laura; Mandoli,
Amit
Published in:
Haematologica
DOI:
10.3324/haematol.2017.180844
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from
it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date:
2018
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Marneth, A. E., Botezatu, L., Hoenes, J. M., Israel, J. C. L., Schuette, J., Vassen, L., Lams, R. F.,
Bergevoet, S. M., Groothuis, L., Mandoli, A., Martens, J. H. A., Huls, G., Jansen, J. H., Duehrsen, U., Berg,
T., Moroy, T., Wichmann, C., Lo, M-C., Zhang, D-E., ... Khandanpour, C. (2018). GFI1 is required for
RUNX1/ETO positive acute myeloid leukemia. Haematologica, 103(9), E395-E399.
https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2017.180844
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
GFI1 is required for
RUNX1/ETO positive acute
myeloid leukemia
RUNX1/ETO (Acute Myeloid Leukemia 1-Eight Twenty One) is an onco-fusion protein produced as a consequence of the t(8;21)(q22;q22) translocation.1 It
functions as an aberrant transcription factor and con-tributes to AML development. We examined the role of the transcription factor Growth Factor Independence 1 (GFI1),2a RUNX1/ETO target gene, in the initiation and
progression of this type of AML. We show here that GFI1 is required for the maintenance of RUNX1/ETO-induced leukemia and that loss/reduced expression of GFI1 impedes leukemia initiation and progression.
RUNX1/ETO impairs myeloid differentiation and increases expansion of the hematopoietic stem/progeni-tor pool.3Two main RUNX1/ETO transcripts have been
described. The transcript encoding the longest protein isoform contains almost the entire ETO protein including four nerve homology regions (NHRs). Alternative splicing incorporates ETO exon 9a and prematurely truncates the fusion protein.4Consequently, the RUNX1/ETO9a
pro-tein lacks the last two NHRs. The RUNX1/ETO9a tran-script is expressed in most primary t(8;21) AML samples.4
Forced expression of RUNX1/ETO9a in bone marrow (BM) cells causes a rapid development of leukemia in mice.4 RUNX1/ETO induces a specific gene expression
signature, impeding myeloid development and promot-ing leukemogenesis.3
Interestingly, Ptasinska, Lin and many other colleagues showed that GFI1 is among the target genes of RUNX1/ETO3,5(and many other
publica-tions). GFI1 is a transcriptional repressor and an onco-gene in medulloblastoma and lymphoid tumors.6 GFI1
binds NHR2,7 a region of ETO essential for
RUNX1/ETO9a-induced AML.8 Since an interaction
between RUNX1/ETO and GFI1 has been described,7and
GFI1 represses its own transcription,9 we investigated
whether expression of GFI1 is elevated in RUNX1/ETO+
AML patients and whether GFI1 is important for RUNX1/ETO-induced leukemogenesis.
We first examined whether GFI1 gene expression was increased in RUNX1/ETO+ AML samples. Analysis of a
publicly available cohort of over 500 AML patients and their expression data sets10,11
showed that GFI1 expres-sion was elevated in RUNX1/ETO+ AML samples
com-pared to RUNX1/ETO- AML samples (P<0.001) and to
normal BM or CD34+ cells (Figure 1A). This finding was
confirmed in independent cohorts (Figures 1B and 1C10,11).
Interestingly, high GFI1 expression also correlated with higher incidence of NPM1 mutations, FLT3-ITD as well as MLL-rearrangements (Table 1). When we analyzed GFI1 expression in the context of other types of AML, we observed that only low-intermediate risk AML patients with PML-RARa mutation have comparable expression levels to RUNX1/ETO positive AML in two independent cohorts, while all the other types have lower expression levels (Online Supplementary Figure S1A-D). As high GFI1 expression has been implicated in lymphoid leukemia,6
we investigated whether it is also important for RUNX1/ETO+leukemia induction and maintenance.
To understand whether loss of Gfi1 affects RUNX1/ETO+ leukemia development, we studied the
consequences of Gfi1 ablation in murine models of RUNX1/ETO-induced AML. We retrovirally transduced Lineage negative (Lin-) BM cells from Gfi1 wildtype (WT)
or knockout (KO) mice with RUNX1/ETO9a IRES GFP (shortly RUNX1/ETO9a) and tested their clonogenic capacity in a colony forming cell (CFC) assay. The
absence of Gfi1 reduced colony numbers by two-fold (Figure 1D), while the clonogenic capacity of non-trans-duced Gfi1 WT and KO cells was similar (data not shown). In a serial replating assay, the absence of Gfi1 inhibited the growth of transduced cells 6 to 10-fold compared to Gfi1 WT cells (Figure 1E). These data indi-cate that Gfi1 contributes to the cell growth and clono-genic capacity of RUNX1/ETO9a+ cells or that loss of
GFI1 abolished the transformative effect of RUNX1/ETO9a.
To verify the effects of Gfi1 loss on RUNX1/ETO-asso-ciated AML in vivo, we transplanted Gfi1 WT mice with Gfi1 WT or KO Lin-BM cells expressing RUNX1/ETO9a. Following transplantation with Gfi1 WT/RUNX1/ETO9 transduced cells, all mice developed AML within 250 days (Figure 1F). In contrast, only 3/10 mice transplanted with Gfi1 KO/RUNX1/ETO9a transduced cells died of leukemia (Figure 1F).
Since retroviral-mediated oncofusion protein expres-sion can lead to non-physiologically high expresexpres-sion lev-els, we used a second system, in which expression of RUNX1/ETO is induced endogenously. Conditional RUNX1/ETO knock-in mice12 with either a Gfi1 WT or
KO background were injected with poly(I:C) to activate RUNX1/ETO expression. Subsequent treatment with the DNA-damaging agent N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea (ENU) trig-gers AML formation. During one year following poly(I:C) and ENU injections, 30% (7/22) of RUNX1/ETO+/Gfi1
WT mice developed RUNX1/ETO+ myeloid leukemia,
while the remaining mice developed lymphoma12 (Figure
1G, upper panel). The myeloid leukemia appearing in these animals was characterized by expression of CD34 (Figure 1G, lower panel) and a lack of CD4 or CD8 sur-face markers (data not shown). In contrast, none of the RUNX1/ETO+/Gfi1 KO mice developed leukemia or
lym-phoma (Figure 1G, upper panel). Thus, Gfi1 is required for ENU/RUNX1/ETO-induced leukemia development.
To study the consequences of reduced GFI1 expression in human leukemia cells, we used two GFI1 shRNA con-structs13 to silence GFI1 in RUNX1/ETO+ SKNO-1 and
Kasumi-1 cells. In a proliferation competition experi-ment, cells transduced with either of the two shRNAs against GFI1 were rapidly overgrown by non-transduced cells, while this was not the case for control-transduced cells (Figure 1H, I). To study whether GFI1 could be a downstream target of RUNX1/ETO, ChIP-seq experi-ments were performed. GFI1 promoter occupancy by RUNX1/ETO was analyzed in three RUNX1/ETO+
pri-mary AML samples and the RUNX1/ETO+ cell line
Kasumi-1.14 A strong RUNX1/ETO signal within intron 1
of the GFI1 gene was found in all RUNX1/ETO ChIP-seq profiles (Figure 2A and data not shown), confirming that GFI1 is indeed one of its direct targets. In addition, these RUNX1/ETO profiles were similar (Figure 2B and data not shown) to RUNX1 ChIP-seq profiles in Kasumi-1 cells, which were generated using an antibody that does not recognize RUNX1/ETO. Furthermore, the GFI1 gene contained several RUNX1 putative binding motifs, one of which was located in the promoter and transcription start site (TSS) associated with the the RUNX1/ETO peak. GFI1 ChIP-seq revealed that RUNX1/ETO and GFI1 peaks partially overlapped (Figure 2A), which could mean that the proteins interact and influence each other’s function.
To gain more insight into the interplay between RUNX1/ETO and GFI1, we compared their genome-wide occupancies. We found that the RUNX1/ETO, RUNX1 and GFI1 binding profiles were highly compara-ble, since clustering was based on peak width and
L
ETTERS TO THE
E
DITOR
Figure1. GFI1 is highly expressed in RUNX1/ETO+AML and required for growth of RUNX1/ETO+ cells.(A) Micro-array data of GFI1 expression in RUNX1/ETO+
and remaining AML samples, normal bone marrow (BM) and CD34+ cells from an AML patient cohort published by Wouters et al.10Samples without information
on large chromosomal aberrations were excluded from this graph. The red lines indicate the median (**P<0.001). (B) qRT-PCR data of GFI1 expression in
RUNX1/ETO+AML versus other AML samples. GFI1 expression was normalized to PBGD expression. The red lines indicate the median (**P<0.01). (C) RNA-seq
data of GFI1 expression in AML patients harboring recurrent chromosomal rearrangements from an AML patient cohort published by Cancer Genome Atlas Research.11RPKM: reads per kilobase per million mapped reads. The red lines indicate the median (***P<0.0001). (D) Colony forming cell (CFC)-assay using RUNX1/ETO9a-transduced murine Lineage (Lin–) Gfi1 WT or KO bone marrow (BM) cells (mean±SD, n=3 for each genotype, **P=0.003). (E) Serial replating
assay with RUNX1/ETO9a-transduced murine Lin–cells derived from Gfi1 WT or Gfi1 KO mice in liquid culture. After 6-10 days the number of cells was counted
and 1000 cells/well were serially replated two more times (mean±SD, n=3). The experiment was performed at least three times in triplicates. One representative experiment is shown for each serial plating assay (*P=0.01). (F) Kaplan-Meier curve of AML-free survival for mice transplanted with Lin–cells from Gfi1 WT or
KO mice transduced with RUNX1/ETO9a (n=10 for Gfi1 KO and n=8 for Gfi1 WT, P=0.003). (G) Upper panel: Kaplan-Meier curve showing tumor-free survival of conditional RUNX1/ETO knock-in mice that were treated with poly(I:C) to activate RUNX1/ETO and with ENU to induce DNA damage and as a consequence, tumors. Lower panel: Representative FACS plot of ENU-induced AML in RUNX1/ETO knock-in mice showing the frequency of CD34+cells in one of the Gfi1 wild
type RUNX1/ETO positive sarcomas. (H) Knockdown (KD) of GFI1 in the RUNX1/ETO+cell line SKNO-1 using two established GFI1 shRNAs (shGFI1-65 and
shGFI1-68) in a growth competition experiment over time. The normalized percentage of GFI1 or non-targeting (NT) shRNA transduced cells (Venus+) is shown
(mean±SD, three cultures, *P<0.05). (I) Similar to D, in RUNX1/ETO+ Kasumi-1 cells two established GFI1 shRNAs (shGFI1-65 and shGFI1-68) constructs were
used in a growth competition experiment over time. The normalized percentage of GFI1 or non-targeting (NT) shRNA transduced cells (Venus+) is shown
(mean±SD, three cultures, *P<0.05).
A
B
C
D
E
F
sity instead of differential binding (Figure 2B, left panel) at almost all of the ~40.000 binding sites identified. Genomic annotation revealed that co-occupancy was not specific only for TSSs/promoter areas, but also for inter-genic and intronic regions (10.379-14.241 sites each) (Figure 2B, middle panel). Only a minority of binding sites (~2.000) could be identified with either RUNX1 (1.597 peaks) or RUNX1/ETO (441) binding, but these displayed equal GFI1 occupancy, suggesting no preferen-tial colocalization of GFI1 and WT or mutant RUNX1 (Figure 2B, right panel). To investigate whether GFI1 reg-ulates RUNX1/ETO DNA binding in vivo we determined RUNX1/ETO DNA binding using ChIP-seq in spleen cells of leukemic mice transplanted with Gfi1 WT or Gfi1 KO/RUNX1/ETO9a-transduced cells. We found that RUNX1/ETO binds at many sites, such as the Sfpi1 locus (Figure 2C). Interestingly, a change in RUNX1/ETO occu-pancy at the Gfi1 promoter region was observed in Gfi1 KO cells (Figure 2C), suggesting that an altered binding of RUNX1/ETO could deregulate Gfi1 expression. Using a cutoff of 3-fold, 83 regions showed increased RUNX1/ETO occupancy (Figure 2D), whereas 210 showed decreased occupancy. Decreased RUNX1/ETO occupancy regions were associated with genes of the Hippo, Rap1, Cancer and TGFB pathways. These results suggest that Gfi1 is regulating RUNX1/ETO binding and activation at genes involved in leukemic transformation.
We also investigated the motif composition of GFI1, RUNX1 and RUNX1/ETO common binding sites. This revealed enrichment of the RUNX1/ETO and GFI1
bind-ing sequences (Figure 2E), suggestbind-ing that co-occupancy could be the result of each protein binding independently to the DNA. Further research is needed to elucidate the exact mechanism causing high GFI1 expression in RUNX1/ETO+AML patients and the functional interplay
between GFI1 and RUNX1/ETO/RUNX1 in induction and maintenance of AML. The human and mouse Gfi1 promoters share regions with very high sequence similar-ity, including the region around the TSS. RUNX1/ETO9a occupancy was also found in this region in two
inde-pendent samples from murine leukemic
RUNX1/ETO9a/Gfi1 WT cells (Figure 2F and data not shown).
Our findings reveal that expression of GFI1 is higher in RUNX1/ETO+ AML samples compared to other AML
types and that absence of Gfi1 delays the growth of RUNX1/ETO9a+ cells both in vitro and in vivo. The fact
that loss of Gfi1 negatively influences leukemia develop-ment might seem contradictory to our previous reports indicating that reduced levels of Gfi1 (10-20% of physio-logical level) accelerate AML development.11 We propose
that GFI1 might have context-dependent roles in leuke-mogenesis and, in the case of RUNX1/ETO, it might be required for sustained growth. In addition, AML with t(8;21)(q22;q22) translocation may be different from other types of leukemia since the RUNX1/ETO fusion protein directly binds to GFI1.
Thus, our results demonstrate an important role for GFI1/Gfi1 in the onset and maintenance of RUNX1/ETO+
AML.
L
ETTERS TO THE
E
DITOR
Table 1.Molecular, cytological and cytogenetic characteristics of AML with regard to GFI1 expression.
RUNX1/ETO
+PML-RAR
a
+Samples with
Samples with
AML
AML
highest 25% GFI1
lowest 75% GFI1
expression in remaining
expression in remaining
AML samples
remaining AML samples
Chromosomal rearrangements Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
CBFb-MYH11 0/7 0.0 0/16 0.0 2/45 4.4 9/111 8.1 MLL-Rearrangements 0/7 0.0 0/16 0.0 8/45 17.8* 3/111 2.7 Molecular aberrations RUNX1 mutation 0/7 0.0 0/16 0.0 1/45 2.2* 16/111 14.4 CEBPa mutation 0/7 0.0 0/16 0.0 1/45 2.2 12/111 10.8 DNMT3a mutation 0/7 0.0 0/16 0.0 13/45 28.9 30/111 27.0 FLT3-ITD 1/7 14.3 5/16 31.3 14/45 31.1* 17/111 15.3 FLT3-TKD 0/7 0.0 0/16 0.0 6/45 13.3 6/111 5.4 IDH1 mutation 0/7 0.0 0/16 0.0 7/45 15.6 9/111 8.1 IDH2 mutation 0/7 0.0 0/16 0.0 5/45 11.1 12/111 10.8 NPM1 mutation 0/7 0.0 0/16 0.0 20/45 44.4* 28/111 25.2
FLT3-ITD and NPM1 mutated 0/7 0.0 0/16 0.0 9/45 20.0* 7/111 6.3
TET2 mutation 1/7 14.3 0/16 0.0 2/45 4.4 13/111 11.7 TP53 mutation 0/7 0.0 0/16 0.0 2/45 4.4 13/111 11.7 FAB classification M0 0/38 0.0 0/25 0.0 4/110 3.6 14/333 4.2 M1 2/38 5.3 0/25 0.0 24/110 21.8 71/333 21.3 M2 32/38 84.2 2/25 8.0 25/110 22.7 71/333 21.3 M3 0/38 0.0 22/25 88.0 0/110 0.0 1/333 0.3 M4 4/38 10.5 1/25 4.0 24/110 21.8 63/333 18.9 M5 0/38 0.0 0/25 0.0 30/110 27.3 86/333 25.8
L
ETTERS TO THE
E
DITOR
Figure 2. RUNX1/ETO, RUNX1 and GFI1 occupy the GFI1 locus and highly similar regions genome-wide. (A) ChIP-seq results on the GFI1 locus (hg19 chr1:92,938,000-92,953,033). Conservation with the mouse genome is indicated. Profiles 1-3: GFI1, RUNX1/ETO and RUNX1 binding to the GFI1 locus in pri-mary RUNX1/ETO+AML samples.14Profiles 4-6: RUNX1/ETO binding to the GFI1 locus in the RUNX1/ETO+cell line Kasumi-1. (B) ChIP-seq on Kasumi-1 cells
showing that RUNX1/ETO, RUNX1 and GFI1 occupy the same genomic regions. Left panel: RUNX1/ETO, RUNX1 and GFI1 occupancy on all RUNX1/ETO, RUNX1 and GFI1 peaks. When clustering analysis was performed, peaks were clustered based on peak width and intensity, rather than on regions that were bound by either transcription factor versus multiple transcription factors. Middle panel: genomic distribution of regions occupied by RUNX1/ETO, RUNX1 and GFI1. RE: RUNX1/ETO. Right panel: to study whether GFI1 preferentially interacted with RUNX1/ETO over RUNX1, GFI1 occupancy was studied on largely RUNX1-specific (left) or largely RUNX1/ETO-specific (right) binding sites. (C) RUNX1/ETO9a binding to mouse Sfpi1 and Gfi1 loci in spleen cells of leukemic mice transplanted with Gfi1 WT or Gfi1 KO/RUNX1/ETO9a-transduced cells. The red box indicates altered RUNX1/ETO9a occupancy in Gfi1 KO cells. (D) Occupancy of RUNX1/ETO9a (left) at regions increased in RUNX1/ETO binding (top) or decreased in RUNX1/ETO binding (bottom) in Gfi1 KO leukemic cells. Altered binding of RUNX1/ETO to mouse Gfi1 promoter in Gfi1 KO leukemic cells from spleen: 83 regions showed increased RUNX1/ETO occupancy (top), while 210 showed decreased occupancy (bottom). KEGG pathway enrichment of genes associated with regions of altered RUNX1/ETO9a binding. RPKM: reads per kilobase per million mapped reads. (E) Shown are the consensus sequences for GFI1 and RUNX1/ETO found in our ChIP-seq profiles. (F) Binding profile of HA-tagged RUNX1/ETO9a on mouse Gfi1 promoter region obtained with anti-HA antibody. The positions of the predicted transcription initiation site (arrow) and the two RUNX1 consensus sites (asterisks) are indicated. The numbers indicate the positions relative to the transcription initiation site (+1bp). ChIP (a) and ChIP (b) are the regions analyzed by PCR following ChIP assays.
A
B
C
D
Anna E. Marneth,1#Lacramioara Botezatu,2# Judith M.
Hönes,2,3#Jimmy C.L. Israël,1Judith Schütte,2Lothar Vassen,2
Robert F. Lams,2Saskia M. Bergevoet,1Laura Groothuis,1
Amit Mandoli,4Joost H.A. Martens,4Gerwin Huls,5
Joop H.Jansen,1Ulrich Dührsen,2Tobias Berg,6Tarik Möröy,7
Christian Wichmann,8Mia-Chia Lo,9Dong-Er Zhang,9
Bert A. van der Reijden1*and Cyrus Khandanpour2,10* 1Department of Laboratory Medicine, Laboratory of Hematology,
Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; 2
Department of Hematology, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany; 3Department of
Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, University Hospital Essen, University Duisburg-Essen, Germany; 4Department of Molecular
Biology, Faculty of Science, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands;
5Department of Hematology, University Medical Center Groningen,
University of Groningen, The Netherlands; 6Department of Medicine II
- Hematology/Oncology, Goethe University, Frankfurt/Main, Germany; 7Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal (IRCM),
Hematopoiesis and Cancer Research Unit, and Université de Montréal, Canada; 8Department of Transfusion Medicine, Cell
Therapeutics and Hemostaseology, Ludwig-Maximilian University Hospital, Munich, Germany; 9Department of Pathology & Division of
Biological Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, USA and 10Department of Medicine A, Hematology, Oncology and
Pneumology, University Hospital Münster, Germany; AEM, LE and JMH contributed equally to this work
#these authors contributed equally to this work; *co-corresponding
authors.
Acknowledgements: we acknowledge Dr. HLG for sharing the GFI1 knockdown plasmids. We thank Renata Köster and Saskia Grunwald for excellent technical assistance as well as the team of the animal facility of University Hospital Essen for mouse genotyping, tech-nical and administrative assistance. We also thank Klaus Lennartz and Dr. Joachim Göthert for sharing resources and technical information.
Funding: CK was supported by the IFORES fellowship of the University Clinic of Essen, a Max-Eder fellowship from the German Cancer fund (Deutsche Krebshilfe) as well as of the Dr. Werner Jackstädt-Stiftung and the Fritz-Thyssen-Stiftung. TM was supported by a CIHR Foundation grant, a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair and a grant from the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. The part of work in DE Zhang lab was supported by NIH R01CA104509. TB was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) (Grants BE 4198/1-1 and BE 4198/2-1).
Correspondence: Cyrus.Khandanpour@uk-essen.de/ Cyrus.Khandanpour@ukmuenster.de/
Bert.vanderReijden@radboudumc.nl doi:10.3324/haematol.2017.180844
Information on authorship, contributions, and financial & other disclo-sures was provided by the authors and is available with the online version of this article at www.haematologica.org.
References
1. Hospital MA, Prebet T, Bertoli S, et al. Core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia in first relapse: a retrospective study from the French AML Intergroup. Blood. 2014;124(8):1312-1319.
2. Phelan JD, Shroyer NF, Cook T, Gebelein B, Grimes HL. Gfi1-cells and circuits: unraveling transcriptional networks of development and disease. Curr Opin Hematol. 2010;17(4):300-307.
3. Ptasinska A, Assi SA, Mannari D, et al. Depletion of RUNX1/ETO in t(8;21) AML cells leads to genome-wide changes in chromatin struc-ture and transcription factor binding. Leukemia. 2012;26(8):1829-1841.
4. Yan M, Kanbe E, Peterson LF, et al. A previously unidentified alterna-tively spliced isoform of t(8;21) transcript promotes leukemogenesis. Nat Med. 2006;12(8):945-949.
5. Lin S, Ptasinska A, Chen X, et al. A FOXO1-induced oncogenic net-work defines the AML1-ETO preleukemic program. Blood. 2017;130(10):1213-1222.
6. Khandanpour C, Phelan JD, Vassen L, et al. Growth factor independ-ence 1 antagonizes a p53-induced DNA damage response pathway in lymphoblastic leukemia. Cancer Cell. 2013;23(2):200-214. 7. McGhee L, Bryan J, Elliott L, et al. Gfi-1 attaches to the nuclear
matrix, associates with ETO (MTG8) and histone deacetylase pro-teins, and represses transcription using a TSA-sensitive mechanism. J Cell Biochem. 2003;89(5):1005-1018.
8. Wichmann C, Becker Y, Chen-Wichmann L, et al. Dimer-tetramer transition controls RUNX1/ETO leukemogenic activity. Blood. 2010;116(4):603-613.
9. Yucel R, Kosan C, Heyd F, Moroy T. Gfi1:green fluorescent protein knock-in mutant reveals differential expression and autoregulation of the growth factor independence 1 (Gfi1) gene during lymphocyte development. J Biol Chem. 2004;279(39):40906-40917.
10. Wouters BJ, Lowenberg B, Erpelinck-Verschueren CA, van Putten WL, Valk PJ, Delwel R. Double CEBPA mutations, but not single CEBPA mutations, define a subgroup of acute myeloid leukemia with a distinctive gene expression profile that is uniquely associated with a favorable outcome. Blood. 2009;113(13):3088-3091. 11. Cancer Genome Atlas Research N. Genomic and epigenomic
land-scapes of adult de novo acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(22):2059-2074.
12. Higuchi M, O'Brien D, Kumaravelu P, Lenny N, Yeoh EJ, Downing JR. Expression of a conditional AML1-ETO oncogene bypasses embryonic lethality and establishes a murine model of human t(8;21) acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer Cell. 2002;1(1):63-74.
13. Horman SR, Velu CS, Chaubey A, et al. Gfi1 integrates progenitor versus granulocytic transcriptional programming. Blood. 2009;113(22):5466-5475.
14. Martens JH, Mandoli A, Simmer F, et al. ERG and FLI1 binding sites demarcate targets for aberrant epigenetic regulation by AML1-ETO in acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2012;120(19):4038-4048. 15. Karsunky H, Zeng H, Schmidt T, et al. Inflammatory reactions and
severe neutropenia in mice lacking the transcriptional repressor Gfi1. Nat Genet. 2002;30(3):295-300.
